: Ok, so let's take your logic of using the family name. It might work for the 810 (Which it doesn't, because EMR have named them themselves)<ref>https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/intercity</ref>, but does it work for anything else? No. The Class 222's have never been called Voyagers. Voyager is a '''brand name''' of XC and VT/AWC of the units used on the west coast.<ref>https://www.avantiwestcoast.co.uk/onboard/about-our-trains</ref><ref>https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/on-board-with-crosscountry/our-trains</ref> I've looked at both Eversholt (ROSCO)<ref>https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-222/</ref> and EMR (TOC)<ref>https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/intercity</ref> and they don't refer to them as Voyager, so I'm unsure how you can verify or cite they are called "Voyagers". Eversholt quote them as ''"part of Bombardier’s Class 22 X high speed diesel electric multiple unit range"''<ref>https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-222/</ref> Also, are we saying now that the Class 170s are not called Turbostars? Or that the class 395's should be called AT300? Or the Class 180 should be called Coradia? No. Because in reality, this is not what they're called. --[[User:ChrisRCentral|ChrisRCentral]] ([[User talk:ChrisRCentral|talk]]) 16:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
: Ok, so let's take your logic of using the family name. It might work for the 810 (Which it doesn't, because EMR have named them themselves)<ref>https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/intercity</ref>, but does it work for anything else? No. The Class 222's have never been called Voyagers. Voyager is a '''brand name''' of XC and VT/AWC of the units used on the west coast.<ref>https://www.avantiwestcoast.co.uk/onboard/about-our-trains</ref><ref>https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/on-board-with-crosscountry/our-trains</ref> I've looked at both Eversholt (ROSCO)<ref>https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-222/</ref> and EMR (TOC)<ref>https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/intercity</ref> and they don't refer to them as Voyager, so I'm unsure how you can verify or cite they are called "Voyagers". Eversholt quote them as ''"part of Bombardier’s Class 22 X high speed diesel electric multiple unit range"''<ref>https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-222/</ref> Also, are we saying now that the Class 170s are not called Turbostars? Or that the class 395's should be called AT300? Or the Class 180 should be called Coradia? No. Because in reality, this is not what they're called. --[[User:ChrisRCentral|ChrisRCentral]] ([[User talk:ChrisRCentral|talk]]) 16:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I lend my support to what ChrisRCentral has said and would also like to point out that it is of paramount importance that Wikipedia caters to those who are not experts in the field that they are searching for. As such I think it is key to the success of clarity that we use the format set out in Option B as it caters best to the users who are not clued up in the specifics of this subject field.
I choose '''Option B''', as it is the name most often encountered, and also usually found in marketing and information from official sources. [[User:Superalbs|Superalbs]] ([[User talk:Superalbs|talk]]) 15:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I choose '''Option B''', as it is the name most often encountered, and also usually found in marketing and information from official sources. [[User:Superalbs|Superalbs]] ([[User talk:Superalbs|talk]]) 15:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The user has been making several edits to Railway related articles in the last few months. Unfortunately they have been riddled with poor spelling and grammar, add unneeded speculation and most of the time lack sources. I discussed this on their talk page last night but they appear to have ignored it and made several more edits this morning. SK2242 (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You posted (twice) on their talk page, supplementing two previous notices by bots; but there is no evidence that they replied (page history), so it's not yet a discussion. But you're right, their editing is very poor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trainset - what does it mean?
In edits like these, Class380 (talk·contribs) is insisting on the inclusion of a column named "Trainset" and a link to a class of rolling stock that is different from those shown later in the same rows of the table. Should we have this column, and if so can we either use a more meaningful column header or at least provide a link to a page that explains the term? To a younger person, a "trainset" is a box containing a dozen or so pieces of track, a toy locomotives and some carriages and/or wagons. This is clearly not what is intended: but the only other meaning that I am aware of is a fixed-formation rake of carriages, such as a multiple unit. So a class 507 trainset is no more nor less than a class 507 unit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday at about 20:12 (whilst riding in the late-running 20:07 Banbury to Didcot), I noticed in Banbury depot a stabled train comprising two units, both of which had the destination "99 Sheffield via Rugby Central" on their front (northernmost) indicators. Do Chiltern Railways know something that we don't? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see now ... my records show that starting from January 1935, I'm missing January 1936, May and September 1937, May and October 1940. So I should have June 2018 somewhere, this may take some time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RM has a digital archive which is quite inexpensive for existing subscribers. Alas, my paper magazines go in the recycling once read, and I don't currently have digital access but if you're struggling I could renew it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?11:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you will have noticed, the redlink has turned blue. Mitchell was an early director of the revived Festiniog Railway, so books covering that subject may be of use in expanding the article. I would expect fuller obituaries to be published in the railway press in due course, so again, hopefully more material to expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another task that will need doing is to link the article from the various cites of his books. Could this be a task for a bot? Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dinoboyaz (talk·contribs) is claiming, without any evidence at all, that the LMS Royal Scot locomotives nos. 6100 and 6152 did not exchange identities permanently in 1933. I have provided sources to show that they did (and can provide more if necessary), but with these edits, Dinoboyaz continues to insist that they are right and I am wrong. Essentially, they are flouting WP:V and denying the accuracy of books written by Bob Essery and also books published by the RCTS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to deny: while I admit I haven’t read those books, they may not be accurate. I ordered them myself to look at it, but a fellow on discord confirmed the identity swap being permanent is a myth. Also, Locomotive Services Limited has logs that would confirm if the locomotive went to America. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dinboyaz, nevertheless they are two published sources from sources normally accepted as reliable. "A fellow on discord" doesn't have the same standard of reliability. If you want to disprove the information, the onus is on you to provide reliable, verifiable sources to support your assertion. Then we can all assess the relative values of each. Nthep (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And neither does a debate prove the opposite either, so instead of offering opinions from "mates on the internet" produce some reliable sources that refute the claim Essery et al make. Nthep (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the source has no hard evidence, that counts it as a myth, it's just a saying that it happened, no hard-line or substantial evidence to prove it, just like Robin Hood. Around the time of King John's reign he was getting robbed and the poor were getting paid, and people talked about a Robin Hood, it got passed down and it's a myth, there's stuff which kinda show that it could've happened, but yet again there's other stuff showing that it never happened. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source stating this fact is the evidence we need on Wikipedia. We might have to discuss if a specific source is reliable but we don't have to trace back the sources that reliable source used. --PhiH (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There can't be a dispute here if one fellow has sources and the other hasn't. That goes to the core of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Essery may be wrong, or an inferior source. I can't speak to that. However, what's required at this stage is either a source that explicitly states Essery is wrong, or a source that contradicts Essery and is evaluated as more reliable. Otherwise, there's nothing to do here. Mackensen(talk)01:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources are reliable: I looked online to find out. All of them said that the identity swap was permanent, but none provided any evidence to prove it. Like I said, without sufficient evidence, no source can be taken as fact. Dinoboyaz (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t you see, there are no sources I’m aware of that prove or disprove it, I looked. All of them said that they swapped identities, but didn’t provide any specifics. I’m waiting for a book that could provide the answer we’re looking for, but I never said it didn’t happen: I just said there’s no proof it did, which there isn’t. It’s that simple. I suggest a compromise. Dinoboyaz (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you persist in stating that there's no proof it happened, when a reliable source stated it did? Unless you have solid evidence that the book is unreliable (and that doesn't include what some bloke down the pub on social media told you), it should remain in place. If there is reasonable doubt from another reliable source, we can state both sides. — O Still SmallVoice of Clam07:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t even know what’s in that book: it could just mention they swapped permanently without providing evidence for it. Like I said, no matter how reliable a source is, it can’t be considered reliable if it just says stuff without providing sufficient evidence for it. I emailed the Royal Scot Locomotive Turst, they met provide some info. Dinoboyaz (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this video, Chris Eden Green actually states that 6100 and 6133 never returning to their original identities is nothing more than a belief, with interpretation being left up to rivet counters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-AKdB7S4LU&feature=youtu.be
.... So lets actually see the quote from the transcript from 07:55 to 08:17 is: "... the tour was such a big deal that it seems to have sparked a conspiracy theory when the engine came back her identity would have been swapped back to the Kings Dragoon Guardsmen but there remains a long-standing belief that once she became royal Scot she stayed that way though identity clarification is left entirely open to interpretation by rivet counters". Am I mis-interpreting this or is Chris Eden Green calling Dinoboyaz a conspiracy theorist? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
..... You're missing the point: it’s not about conspiracy, it’s about the fact Chris Eden Green is a reliable resource. He made this video before I learned it was actually a myth they never swapped back.Dinoboyaz (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a number of cases in the past where "reliable" sources have proved not to have been, by which time their information has been repeated many times. The poster boy for this is the previously-well-regarded "What Happened To Steam" books, which were later debunked as having huge amounts of fictional information; by that time that information had been repeated in publications by many others who would be regarded as reliable, such as the RCTS. The difference there however is that the people who debunked WHTS did so by unearthing historical documents which proved the information to be false. Here, as far as I can see, we've no such documentation, simply assertion. Black Kite (talk)10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you have a point, you can’t deny there’s no official-known documentation they stayed swapped after the tour. It’s that simple: a lack of documented proof means it can’t be confirmed or denied whether the swap was permanent. Dinoboyaz (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither has anybody cited a source that justifies they did swap identities, even Rose's sources may not have done that, so it can’t be proven or disproven. Dinoboyaz (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We know they swapped for the tour. That's a well sourced fact. We also have sources that say they did not swap back (here's a few more [1][2]). We don't have any reliable sources that show that they did. I can't find any sources that explicitly say that the Statue of Liberty is not made out of sushi rice, either, but I don't need to because there isn't any reliable information claiming that it is. Black Kite (talk)10:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m aware they swapped for the tour, but what you just provided can’t prove they never swapped back because it’s only previews. I looked through the former and they just said the swap was done for the tour, nothing about never swapping back. The second one doesn’t show anything for me. What exactly are you trying to show me? What is the exact evidence you’re talking about? Dinoboyaz (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I’m concerned, they don’t provide any direct evidence either, which further means they can’t confirm the swap was permanent. So in essence, you actually don’t know if they never swapped back. Dinoboyaz (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those (well-regarded) books that I've linked say that the swap was permanent (and there were more book sources, but those didn't have pageview in Google Books) . There are two further book sources linked in the 46100 article. That's at least four. How many reliable sources say they did swap back? Zero. So it doesn't actually matter if you think they swapped back, without any actual evidence of that the articles will follow the sources we have. Black Kite (talk)11:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you're being a hypocrite: you claim nothing I have proves they swapped back but your sources don’t prove anything either. You keep providing stuff that says they never swapped back but doesn’t provide any proof they did. Show me something that does provide proof they did, not just saying they did without proving it. Dinoboyaz (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks now, nice. Wikipedia works on reliable sources. Reliable sources have been provided to show they didn't swap back. You have provided no reliable sources to show they did. Therefore, this conversation has reached its end, I think. Black Kite (talk)11:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn’t, because your sources prove nothing: they just say it happened. Next time you provide a source, consider that first. What's needed is some physical evidence, such as build numbers on the frames. Do any of your sources state something like that? Dinoboyaz (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing to drop, not until a source that does more than just say the swap was permanent is brought up. It’s that simple: show me a source that says the swap was permanent and actually provides evidence to back it up, and I’ll have a reason to drop it. Dinoboyaz (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've seen enough here. Consensus is that reliable sources say the swap was permanent. Whether it was or it wasn't is immaterial. Dinoboyaz has been warned to drop the WP:STICK on pain of being indeffed. Should the stick be picked up again, ping me and I'll get the banhammer out. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What pic? In any case, the number 6152 didn't vanish - it was applied to the loco that had originally borne the number 6100, so it was perfectly possible to take a photo of a loco bearing the number 6152 at any time between 1930 and 1948. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pics like that one. And besides, keeping a swap of identities permanent would make no sense: the swap between Duchess of Hamilton and Coronation wasn’t made permanent when the former returned from America, so why would they keep the swap between 6100 and 6152? The swap was only made because 6100 was being overhauled at the time: the LMS had no reason to keep it permanent.Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to infer from that photo? That a locomotive numbered 6152 existed after 1933? That is not in doubt. What aspect of that photo indicates that the loco depicted is not the one built in 1927 and originally numbered 6100?
And like I said on WikiProject UK Railways, if the source has no hard evidence, that counts it as a myth, it's just a saying that it happened, no hard-line or substantial evidence to prove it, just like Robin Hood. Around the time of King John's reign he was getting robbed and the poor were getting paid, and people talked about a Robin Hood, it got passed down and it's a myth, there's stuff which kinda show that it could've happened, but yet again there's other stuff showing that it never happened. Dinoboyaz (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stock tables in rolling stock articles
Many UK rolling stock articles have tables that are either totally or largely uncited. An example of the former is British Rail Class 142#Fleet details, where there are two tables that have never been cited and there has been some edit-warring replacing one uncited table with another uncited table. An example of the latter is British Rail Class 43 (HST)#List, while partially cited, also has large amounts of uncited text, making it manifestly unreliable.
Sometimes in magazines there are full disposition tables or in the Platform 5 books that are published annually, these can be considered reliable, but the piecemeal way in which the above two have evolved is not. So, should we keep uncited tables or remove them? Metro140 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that uncited tables should be removed and replaced with sourced ones. There is no evidence of tables being exempt from WP:V in any policy. SK2242 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling stock lead sentences
Recently there has been some disagreement as to what name should be used in the opening sentence and at the top of information boxes of rolling stock articles British Rail Class 222 and British Rail Class 810. Given that this affects multiple articles, have brought here to try and gain as many views as possible.
Some think it should be the family name; e.g. Electrostar, Voyager, AT300, while others the operator assigned name e.g. Capialstar, Meridian, Aurora for the class 378, 222 and 810s respectively. Both are already mentioned in other sentences in the respective lead sections, and linked in the case of the former.
Obviously using an operator assigned name is only possible where the entire fleet is operated by one operator as is the case with the 222, 378 and 810 fleet. Would not be possible in articles like the Class 800 article, as while LNER use the Azuma branding, it is not used by GWR who also operate them.
These are the options, please add if there are more:
Option A: family name irrespective of whether there is an operator assigned name that can be used, e.g. British Rail Class 378 Electrostar, British Rail Class 222 Voyager, British Rail Class 810 AT300
Option B: operator assigned name, e.g. British Rail Class 378 Capitalstar, British Rail Class 222 Meridian, British Rail Class 810 Aurora
Option C: just use the class without any name, e.g. British Rail Class 378, British Rail Class 222, British Rail Class 810
Option D: use a combined name, e.g. British Rail Class 378 Electrostar/Capitlstar, British Rail Class 222 Voyager/Meridian, British Rail Class 810 AT300/AuroraMetro140 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For mine, Option C, clean and simple and can be applied to all classes regardless of whether they are part of a family or nor or have a name or not. Metro140 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think Option B is the best, purely because they're names that are used on the railway. TOCs will specify units under their brand name as they are friendly names that won't confuse the standard traveling public. GWR, for example, use IET for their Class 800/802s as they're easy to remember.[1] In that article, IEP and IET is mentioned, but no Class 800/802. For the Class 222/810 with EMR (which has been a topic of debate recently), they mention the class number briefly, but do use the brand name.[2] As you can see, the brand is mentioned first and then the class. Especially seeing as the new 810s are called "Aurora InterCity trains" and not "Class 810 trains" or "Class 810 AT300 trains". We also have to remember the family name is in the infobox.
Overall, it should go like this:
Use the brand name first if there is one. Will probably be the name that is most familiar with everyone.
If there is no assigned brand name, use the family name if it can be cited and verified. Then people will know what to expect.
If no brand or family name is known, just use the class number as you don't have any more information to go by.
I too would go for Option B and the reason for that is as follows,
Within the very definition of Wiki being an online encyclopedia, it should to all intents and purposes be filled with content with that brief in mind.
I can use an encyclopedia to find out about any topic but it should not be in so much detail that it confuses those not au fait in the specific field any given article talks about (or at least not within the title, sub-text or info box).
So you have to look at it from the POV of the everyday punter, and with that in mind it's best to remember that TOCs specifically use the brand names in marketing and info (PIS,CIS, Menu Cards) in order to differentiate.
Prime example is that VT/AWC use the Pendolino and Voyager brands to save confusing customers especially as the layout of the trains are different, the on-board service is different and the routes they serve are different.
So on balance you would make the assumption that if I was a member of the public and Googled "new EMR trains" and clicked through to wiki, the info should be there and in line with what the TOC's branding is, as if I called up EMR and asked "what provisions are there on the AT300 for disabled passengers" the would more than cause more confusion than resolve.
Further to this both customers, platform staff, depot staff and train crew almost always use the term "Azuma" when referring to the AT300 products within LNERs rolling stock portfolio and I'd wager it's the same across most TOCs.
I've provided the "Azuma" brand guideline link to help illustrate this link between the language used around rolling stock, this isn't anything new and for scope you can take any example of this method of company to customer communications from as far back as "The Big Four", BR, Sectorisation and Franchising (Flying Scotsman, The Coronation Scot, Networkers, Wessex Electrics etc, etc, etc)
Option D is the worst, and most confusing, option. Probably the best option is A as that will have the link to the manufacturer. Different brand names can be introduced in the sections of the article dealing with the different operators. That should get round the problem identified by Slidesauce. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What problem? I look at his argument and he's saying the problem is by calling it by its family name. As I've mentioned and Slidesauce has, EMR and other TOCs have their own branding for a reason. I think we should put ourselves in the shoes of the average Joe and how they're not going to care about the family name, but will care about the brand name. Quoting slidesauce, ""what provisions are there on the AT300 for disabled passengers" the would more than cause more confusion than resolve". You're going to cause so much confusion if someone who doesn't know a lot about trains starts calling it by the family name. As Slidesauce has said, imagine the average Joe reading this and then using it on the phone to the TOC. You're going to confuse the TOC and the person calling. It doesn't matter what we personally want, but we have to be responsible and considerate to the standard public. This is, after all, a global wiki. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me, Option A is the best option. In my opinion, the family name should be made clear and if they happen to have a brand name assigned by their operator, it should be made clear as well, but not by replacing where the family name should go. For this reason, I wouldn't want B because the family name for the 810 units isn't Aurora for example. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing C either to avoid further confusion in the future, but for me A is the best option. --SavageKieran (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so let's take your logic of using the family name. It might work for the 810 (Which it doesn't, because EMR have named them themselves)[4], but does it work for anything else? No. The Class 222's have never been called Voyagers. Voyager is a brand name of XC and VT/AWC of the units used on the west coast.[5][6] I've looked at both Eversholt (ROSCO)[7] and EMR (TOC)[8] and they don't refer to them as Voyager, so I'm unsure how you can verify or cite they are called "Voyagers". Eversholt quote them as "part of Bombardier’s Class 22 X high speed diesel electric multiple unit range"[9] Also, are we saying now that the Class 170s are not called Turbostars? Or that the class 395's should be called AT300? Or the Class 180 should be called Coradia? No. Because in reality, this is not what they're called. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I lend my support to what ChrisRCentral has said and would also like to point out that it is of paramount importance that Wikipedia caters to those who are not experts in the field that they are searching for. As such I think it is key to the success of clarity that we use the format set out in Option B as it caters best to the users who are not clued up in the specifics of this subject field.
I choose Option B, as it is the name most often encountered, and also usually found in marketing and information from official sources. Superalbs (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Explain this